Harm and offence

Scope

Section 7 of the Editorial Policies applies to all ABC content, so this guidance is relevant to all content too.

It covers all of section 7 apart from standard 7.3, which relates to the classification of domestic television programs. That subject is covered in detail in the Associated Standard on Television Program Classification. Note that all programs subject to classification are also subject to the other standards in section 7. This means, for example, that coarse language in a television program will contribute to its classification and will also be assessed against standard 7.1 to ensure that it is justified by context. The guidance is as equally applicable to these programs as to other ABC content.

User generated content (UGC) published on ABC interactive services is subject to section 7, so the guidance is relevant to it as well. Moderators should have regard to the guidance when applying section 7.

Introduction

The Editorial Policies tell us that “all who are involved with content for the ABC are required to act with integrity and take account of likely harms in exercising their power and responsibility”. How do we know what these likely harms are, and how do we take account of them? Principally we do so by carefully applying the standards in section 7 (Harm and offence).

These can be difficult standards to apply because our decisions will inevitably be based on subjective judgement. How offensive is this word? How shocking is this
image? What proportion of the audience will be offended by this joke? How likely is it that showing this dangerous behaviour will lead to harm? Different people will have
different answers, often based on their personal sensitivities.

This guidance aims to help content makers think these issues through and make informed decisions that uphold the standards while still enabling us to broadcast and
publish risky and innovative content consistent with our Charter. It deals with the standards one at a time and sheds some light on how to apply them in practice.

Differentiating between ‘harm’ and ‘offence’

This guidance discusses the risk of causing ‘harm’ and the risk of causing ‘offence’. The two risks tend to be considered together for the most part, but there can be
important differences between them.

To offend someone is to “irritate in mind or feelings” or to “cause resentful displeasure” (Macquarie Dictionary). Causing harm, on the other hand, can go much
further than that, and the consequences of more substantial harm can be greater. By way of example, standard 7.6 (see below) talks about the risk of ‘dangerous
imitation’, which can have a significant impact on both public health and the lives of individuals. Serious attacks on named individuals can also cause harm to reputation
that carries legal risks.

All of this means that the threshold for causing substantial harm can be higher than simply causing offence. This needs to be kept in mind as you work through all of the
guidance provided below.

Standard 7.1: Context

7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

Everyone’s offended by something. Consider these examples, all of which have caused offence to somebody – perhaps one person, perhaps many – in the past.
You may personally find some, none or all of them distasteful:

the words ‘bloody’ or ‘bugger’;

stronger coarse language used aggressively;

the word ‘Pom’ used to describe someone from the UK;

a joke making light of the Holocaust;

a character appearing in blackface;

an irreverent reference to a recently-deceased celebrity;

footage of wild horses being culled;

the use of the name ‘Jesus Christ’ as an expletive;

the inclusion of five men and no women on a discussion panel;

two characters kissing on a children’s program;

two same-sex characters kissing on any program;

the use of the word schizophrenic in its colloquial, non-medical sense;

an artwork featuring poo;

the views of a terrorist;

the expression ‘Happy Holidays’ being used instead of ‘Merry Christmas’.

Our content may also cause harm in many possible ways, such as:

shocking members of the audience with graphic images or descriptions;

exposing young children to depictions of violence;

broadcasting footage of somebody that embarrasses them;

depicting dangerous behaviour that – if copied by viewers – would put others at risk of injury;

interviewing people when they’ve just lost loved ones in a natural disaster;

perpetuating stereotypes about groups within society;

showing crime scene photos of a murder victim’s corpse to an audience that includes the victim’s friends and relatives.

So, given all this harm and offence we might cause, what can we do and what can’t we do? The simple answer is that it’s all about context. It’s perfectly acceptable for
us to broadcast or publish material that might harm or offend, or even content that we know will definitely do so, as long as there’s sufficient editorial context and purpose
to justify it. In other words, it can’t be gratuitous.

How the test operates

Standard 7.1 is a test against which all of our content must be assessed. Let’s look at how that test operates. It has two parts:

Is the content likely to cause harm or offence? This is where we consider the standards and sensitivities of the broad community which the content can
potentially reach (see below, ‘Community standards’). Could the content potentially harm or offend ordinary reasonable audience members (who aren’t necessarily in its target audience), and is it likely to do so?

As we can see from the list above of things that have caused offence in the past, the answer to this first question will often be ‘yes’. That doesn’t necessarily mean that
broadcasting or publishing the content would breach community standards (or the Editorial Policies). What it does mean is that we need to ask the second question and ensure that the likely harm or offence is justified by context.

If so, is that harm or offence justified by context? This is where we consider all the elements of context, including what the content’s target audience is (see below, ‘Determining context’).

Community standards

A fundamental part of answering the first question – deciding whether something is likely to cause harm or offence – is to consider the standards of the community. Community attitudes change across time and contexts. Things that were deeply objectionable twenty years ago may well be quite acceptable today. This can also work in reverse, as changing attitudes towards sexist or homophobic language attest. As well, things that cause considerable offence in one context can cause little offence in another.

It can be difficult to know what current community standards actually are, as there’s little empirical data to rely on.

A useful guide to community attitudes to coarse language can be found in the research report Community Attitudes towards Coarse Language in the Media prepared for the ABC by Urbis Pty Ltd in 2011. Key findings of the research included the following:

Coarse words that people find most offensive are those intended to insult, offend, and denigrate those with a disability, or discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual preference.

Coarse words people find least offensive are those that relate to anatomy, bodily functions and sexual acts.

People feel coarse language on television has a greater impact than on radio or online due to the visual element, especially if combined with visual clues such as aggressive body language or acts of violence.

Coarse language on radio can be more shocking because it occurs less frequently.

The level of offensiveness of coarse language on radio is strongly affected by who the speaker is: if used by a presenter, it’s more offensive than if used by a caller or guest.

Beyond formal research, our best gauge of community standards is our audience. We engage directly with viewers, listeners and users on air and online, including through social media. They give us constant feedback, including complaints, and this can help us to determine what is and isn’t likely to upset them in the future.

Determining context

If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, we need to decide whether the potential harm or offence is justified by context, so we need to determine what that context is.

The most important contextual consideration is the content’s target audience. Every station or network or program is directed at a specific audience. Some content is
aimed at broad audiences while some is aimed at niche groups. Based on audience feedback and research into community standards (see above, ‘Community
standards’), we recognise that different sections of the public can have quite different sensitivities and expectations. Under the Editorial Policies, the ABC can legitimately
present challenging content that is aimed at a particular target audience and has the potential to cause offence to viewers or listeners outside of that group.

This crucial target audience concept can be illustrated with some simple examples. Content aimed at preschool children has a different context to content aimed at a
broad adult audience. Content aimed at people who enjoy edgy comedy has a different context to content aimed at people who enjoy classical music, even though
many people enjoy both.

International target audiences pose special challenges. Content makers working for Radio Australia or Australia Plus have to consider the cultural sensitivities particular
to the countries receiving their content, as they may differ from those of an Australian domestic audience. For example, Indonesian audiences may object to the use of
images of Mohammad; Cambodian audiences may be sensitive to a word like ‘strongman’ being used to describe their prime minister; and Malaysian audiences
may be concerned if a non-Muslim uses the word ‘Allah’.

Once the target audience has been established, it is necessary to consider the other key elements of context:

Type, subject and nature of content. Different types of content create different contexts. What is the item about? Is it a news report, a children’s
program, a specialist factual program, a song, a satirical sketch, a behind-thescenes clip uploaded to YouTube, a tweet, a promotion? A lewd remark that’s
likely to cause offence on a talkback segment on local radio in the middle of the morning might be less likely to do so on an edgy satirical comedy program on
television late at night. A detailed image of the aftermath of a car crash might be justified in the context of a news story or documentary, but unacceptable
within a children’s program. A racial slur made by a radio presenter would be considered in a different context to the same remark coming from a character in
a drama (perhaps to illustrate that the character is racist), or reported in a news story as having been used by a controversial politician.

Tone. Content, and language in particular, can be entirely different depending on tone. Is the tone ironic, aggressive, satirical, playful, realistic, casual,
derisory, serious or mysterious?

Surrounding content. Consider what’s on either side of the potentially affronting content. For example, a TV promotion between two M-rated
programs has a different context to the same promotion between two children’s programs (see Editorial Policies standard 10.1). A rap song with especially
challenging lyrics (e.g. featuring strong coarse or discriminatory language or explicit sexual descriptions) has a different effect when played on triple j’s Hip
Hop Show, surrounded by similar songs, than when played on other triple j programs between songs of other genres. Also, if content is aggregated or
repurposed, the surrounding environment will be different and harm and offence issues may need to be reassessed.

Signposts and warnings. Information provided to the audience to warn them about potentially harmful or offensive content forms part of the context for that
content. See below, ‘Standard 7.2: Warnings’.

If you consider each of these elements, you’ll have a good sense of what the context is. You’ll then be able to consider whether that context is sufficient to justify the
potential harm or offence.

Think of a balancing scale: on one side is the context, editorial purpose and justification, and on the other is the harm or offence. Let’s use, as an example, a joke
in a comedy program aimed at adults that ridicules a convicted paedophile and makes light of child sexual abuse. That’s likely to offend members of the audience
and perhaps cause harm to victims of child sexual abuse. You need to judge how strong the comedic context and purpose is, and how much harm and offence the joke
is likely to cause, and balance them against each other. Is this a funny enough joke to justify the potential offence? Given the nature of the program, would the audience
anticipate something quite that challenging? It could be helpful to seek a range of views, from your colleagues or through upward referral or both, to ensure you aren’t
overreacting or allowing your personal sensitivities to cloud your judgement.

Upward referral

When working on content which is likely to be particularly controversial due to its potential to cause harm or offence, remember your obligation to upwardly refer under
section 1 of the Editorial Policies.

Even with content where the potential to offend a target audience is low, a careful consideration of broader community standards is important in assessing whether the
balance between context and harm or offence has been properly struck. Upward referral allows for a broader discussion about that balance, and assists in identifying
ways of reconciling editorial intent, target audience expectations and community standards.

Standard 7.2: Warnings

7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.

Why we warn

We have established that it is acceptable to broadcast or publish content that will harm or offend, as long as there’s sufficient editorial context to justify it. However,
this creates an obligation to ensure that audiences are able to make informed decisions about their exposure to such content. They have a right to know what’s
coming up so they can switch off.

As noted above, signposts and warnings actually form part of the context for our content and can reduce the likelihood of causing harm or offence. The Urbis
research report cited above found coarse language was more acceptable if an adequate warning was issued. It’s reasonable to assume the same is likely to hold
true for warnings about other kinds of content as well.

How and when we warn

Standard 7.2 envisages all manner of formal and informal warnings, advice and information, from classification symbols and consumer advice to verbal warnings
from presenters and text warnings preceding hyperlinks.

Warnings should be clear and factual, neither urging people to turn off nor daring them to stay. They should be expressed in a style and manner that suits the content,
the format, the platform and the target audience. They should be specific and detailed enough to be genuinely useful. Remember, we’re trying to help people make
informed decisions about the content they consume.

It’s important to heed the words “having regard to the context” in standard 7.2. The contextual considerations relevant to standard 7.1 are just as relevant to warnings. In
particular, make sure you consider the established standards and conventions of the platform, how prominent a warning would be in the context, and where information
might best be placed. For example, in some cases it might be appropriate to provide a warning in the description of a YouTube video rather than at the start of the video
itself.

Also notice the reference to “reasonable efforts”. This is especially relevant in the context of live content, where we can make efforts to determine the likelihood of
offensive content but we can’t predict exactly what will happen (for more on this, see ‘Standard 7.4: Live content’ below).

Generally, warnings should be as close as possible (or practical) to the content they relate to. If a song contains coarse language requiring a warning, it would usually be
given immediately before the song. Similarly, if a news story contains graphic images requiring a warning, it would usually be given immediately before the story rather
than at the start of the bulletin.

Exceptions to this general rule include warnings given in the form of classification symbols and consumer advice on television. Viewers are familiar with the system of
program classification and understand that warnings will be given before each program starts, regardless of where the relevant elements appear. Long-form
documentaries on radio also usually provide guidance up front.

Other considerations

Television staff should be cognisant of the fact that classification is not the sole determinant of warnings and viewer advice, and should not be relied on as such.
There are aspects of television content that may warrant guidance but do not fall into the classifiable elements covered in the Associated Standard on Television Program Classification. Examples include strobe lighting effects, traditional butchery practices, or the fact that a gaming program for children may review games that are classified PG.

Radio staff should follow established labelling and tagging practices for CDs and other media so that appropriate warnings are given when required. Songs and other pre-recorded material (e.g. book readings, stories, comedy pieces) should all be reviewed prior to initial broadcast to determine whether they contain offensive language or other elements that warrant a warning. If they do, this should be clearly labelled on the hard copy itself (e.g. the CD) and they should be tagged appropriately when uploaded to a playlist system. Labels and tags should specify the type of warning required.

Staff who publish online video content should remember that standard 7.2 still applies, even though the content is not subject to classification under standard 7.3.
Television has specific advice for its staff on the classification of online video content [internal link for ABC staff only] in order to meet standard 7.2.

Standard 7.4: Live content

7.4 If inadvertent or unexpected actions, audio or images in live content are likely to cause harm or offence, take appropriate steps to mitigate.

When our content is live, we rarely have the same luxury to deliberate on questions of harm and offence, and to make nuanced decisions about warning the audience, as
we do with pre-recorded content. Standard 7.4 recognises this while also reminding us that we still have to keep faith with our audiences.

The standard imposes an obligation to mitigate – either to moderate or lessen the force of any harm or offence caused by something inadvertent or unexpected, or to
reduce the risk of causing that harm or offence in the first place. What sorts of steps can we take to do this?

Prepare and brief. As much as possible, consider the potential for harm or
offence when preparing live content. The better prepared you are, the more
chance you’ll have to consider what might happen and how you’ll deal with it.
Brief panellists, interviewees, guests and callers with good advice, especially
on the things it might be better that they didn’t say or do.

Warnings. If it seems likely that live content will potentially offend some
sections of the audience, consider whether a pre-emptive warning might be
sensible.

Use tools available. As part of your preparations, make sure you have all
necessary tools available – and when the time comes, make sure you use
them. A key tool in Radio is the ‘dump’ button. Programs or segments which
include talkback must be broadcast on delay, allowing the presenter to use the
dump button to prevent unexpected offensive content from going to air.
Decisions to use the dump button have to be made on the fly, so training is
essential.

Tell the audience what’s going on. If, for example, we’re broadcasting rolling
news coverage of a hostage situation, remember to make regular references so
that viewers tuning in at any time know what they’re seeing and the risks of
staying tuned.

Beware the mic. The Golden Rule of Radio: always assume that a microphone
is ON. Many colleagues in Radio have learned this lesson the hard way. All
presenters should proceed on the assumption that a remark made in a studio
might be going to air, and all talent should be told to assume the same. This
helps to avoid the inadvertent broadcast of offensive language or unfortunate
remarks.

Apologise. In the event that something inappropriate does inadvertently go live
to air, apologise wherever possible and appropriate and move on.

Take action to prevent recurrence. Dump the caller, end the interview, throw
to a song. Be prepared to change tack quickly in the event that things go pear-shaped.

Standard 7.5: Special sensitivities

7.5 The reporting or depiction of violence, tragedy or trauma must be handled with extreme sensitivity. Avoid causing undue distress to victims, witnesses or bereaved relatives. Be sensitive to significant cultural practices when depicting or reporting on recently deceased persons.

This standard highlights several areas where we need to be particularly sensitive to
avoid needless hurt or outrage.

When newsworthy events involving violence, tragedy or trauma occur (things like
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, murders or wars), the ABC is required to report
them. However, we need to recognise that members of the audience will have
particular sensitivities. Are friends and relatives of victims likely to be watching or
listening? How graphic is the footage? How necessary is the detail?

It’s crucial to be extremely careful when covering these events and dealing with
people who are victims, witnesses or bereaved relatives. It is often important to share
with audiences the real impact of such events on those involved and provide people
with an opportunity to bear witness or have their stories heard. However, we do have
obligations towards anyone we interview and need to be aware of their capacity to
give informed consent and the risk of inadvertently causing them further distress.

In some cases, particularly when someone appears to be in shock or is visibly
distressed, it may not be appropriate to interview them at that time. If it is appropriate
to do so, the best way to proceed in violent, tragic or traumatic situations is to provide
interviewees with as much control as possible over the situation by communicating
clearly and openly with them, and giving them genuine opportunities to decide how
they wish to proceed. In such situations:

Always treat interviewees with dignity and respect;

Clearly identify yourself, and provide as much information as possible about how
and when any interview will be used;

Explain your objectives in doing an interview;

Avoid interrupting, patronising or taking control of interviews. Emotional events
often trigger emotional responses including tears. Allow the interviewee to
decide if and when to end an interview, and respect that decision;

Listen carefully.

Remember, our obligations don’t end with the initial broadcast or publication. We
need to be sensitive in how we reuse footage of tragedies or interviews with those
affected in promotions and in coverage of later developments, anniversaries, and
similar events.

We also depict violence, tragedy and trauma in fiction. There is nothing wrong with
doing so, but we need to be cognisant of the possibility of causing distress to
members of the audience who may have had similar personal experiences or
connections to victims in similar circumstances.

Also bear in mind our special obligation towards children, as set out in section 8 of
the Editorial Policies (Children and young people). If children are likely to be
watching or listening, recognise that they may find images of domestic violence and
violence against children or animals particularly upsetting. If you’re considering
interviewing children who have experienced trauma, think very carefully about the
ethics of proceeding, your duty to minimise further distress, and your obligation to
seek consent from parents, guardians or appropriate authorities in accordance with
standard 8.2.

Finally, please respect the wishes and customs of the families and communities of
people who have died. If a deceased person is Indigenous, there may be specific
restrictions on using their given name, image or voice. Where appropriate, provide
warnings to Indigenous viewers if content contains (or may contain) images or voices
of people who have died. Television has further advice on this [internal link for ABC staff only].

Standard 7.6: Dangerous imitation

7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.

The last thing we would want is for someone to copy something they see or hear on
the ABC and consequently hurt themselves or others, but there are times when our
content will include depictions or references that may run the risk of dangerous
imitation. Under standard 7.6, we are only allowed to broadcast or publish such
content if there’s sufficient editorial justification (i.e. context) and we’ve taken steps to
mitigate the risks.

Here are some areas where standard 7.6 comes into play:

Suicide and self-harm. Whenever we report on or depict suicide or self-harm,
we must be highly sensitive to the risk of prompting copycat behaviour. This is
why we often avoid providing details about methods of suicide or self-harm.
The guidance note on Suicide and Self-Harm provides further advice on this.

Smoking, drugs and alcohol. In several genres, including drama, comedy,
factual and music video programs, there are times when depictions of smoking,
drinking or drug abuse are important to a character, story or setting. However,
we should recognise that such depictions can lead to imitation and we don’t
want to encourage or glamorise potentially dangerous habits, particularly
amongst young people.

Children’s content

Standard 7.6 is often relevant for our children’s content, and should be applied
together with the standards in section 8 (Children and young people). Children are
the likeliest portion of the audience to dangerously imitate behaviour they see in the
media. Depending on his or her age and maturity level, a child might not fully
understand the consequences of his or her actions.

What sort of behaviour do we need to be careful about in children’s content? It’s
things like someone riding a bicycle without a helmet, causing an explosion using
common household items, hiding in a fridge, putting an arm out the window of a
moving car, or participating in any extreme sport – dangerous behaviours that could
be copied by children in the audience.

In addition to considering how inherently dangerous the behaviour is, also consider
how easy it would be for a child to copy it. Does it involve specialised equipment that
wouldn’t be accessible to a child, or common household items? Is it taking place in
an exotic or fantastic location, or in a familiar place like a schoolyard?

Staff working on children’s television content should be aware that in relation to
themes in G programs, the Associated Standard on Television Program
Classification says “The presentation of dangerous, imitable behaviour is not
permitted except in those circumstances where it is justified by context. Any depiction
of such behaviour must not encourage dangerous imitation”. This means that the
inclusion of dangerous imitable behaviour can sometimes result in a program being
classified PG rather than G.

Mitigating risks

What steps can be taken to mitigate the risks of dangerous imitation or threats to
health, safety or welfare? Here are some to consider:

Make it clear that the behaviour is being done by (or with the supervision of) a
trained expert.

Warn the audience that the behaviour is dangerous and shouldn’t be copied.

Show safety equipment or otherwise establish that appropriate safety
precautions have been taken.

Explain the reasons for the behaviour; e.g. the expert is handling the dangerous
snake because she needs to tag it for scientific research.

Avoid providing instructional details when it comes to behaviour such as
suicide, self-harm, use of explosives, etc.

If an alarming news bulletin is included in fictional content, make sure the
audience will realise it’s fake.

Standard 7.7: Discrimination and stereotypes

7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.

If we reinforce stereotypes or encourage prejudice, we cause harm to groups within
the community. For that reason, discrimination and stereotypes are only acceptable
in our content if they’re justified by context.

What types of discrimination are subject to the standard? Any and all, including
discrimination on the basis of:

Race

Parental status

Ethnicity

Pregnancy status

Nationality

Social status

Age

Occupational status

Disability

Religious belief or activity

Physical characteristics

Cultural belief or activity

Sexual orientation

Political belief or activity

Gender identity

Criminal record

Intersex status

Trade union activity

Marital status(This list is not exhaustive.)

What possible justification can there be for the use of stereotypes or discriminatory
content? Some examples include:

Characters in drama behaving in a racist, sexist or homophobic way.

News or current affairs content accurately reporting that someone prominent
used discriminatory language or comments – either as a gaffe or as an
expression of genuinely held opinion.

A comedy sketch depicting characters behaving in a stereotypical manner in
order to satirise attitudes towards particular groups.

Nonetheless, regardless of justification, it’s important to be aware of the power and
effect of discriminatory language. Even if there’s a reason to include it in our content,
doing so can normalise it, convey that it’s acceptable, or bring it to the attention of
audience members who might not have been familiar with it.

The Australian Government’s “Mindframe” website provides advice and information
on avoiding stereotypes and discriminatory language relating to mental illness:http://www.mindframe-media.info/.

Status of Guidance Note

This Guidance Note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist
interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the guidance notes relates. The
Editorial Policies contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal
management processes and under the ABC’s complaints-handling procedures.

It is expected that the advice contained in guidance notes will normally be followed.
In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is
permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such
situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals
specified in guidance notes must be complied with.